So, I was watching stargate and they mentioned taking the president, his staff and VIPs to a certain site incase it hits the fan. The site is a glorified campsite basically.
This was to continue the human race and yadda yadda. them mentioned scientists and docters.
Am I the only one who finds this idea daft? You want people so used to a tech society, get dumped into a non-tech world. likely loosing acess to their tech, to live in a campsite?
Eventually you will run out of vaccines, anti-biotics, food, even CLOTHes. I get that certain people are important, but arent survivalists what you want really?
Here is was I would want.
Community leaders, better than a president for being more likely to deal with small group issues.
Herbalists and various low tech doctors along ith classical doctors. These people, when the medicine runs out are more likely to be able to forage for medicine and midwifes
Survivalists and hunters, preferably those who can kill without guns.]
And a trained psychologist.
I found it odd too. A president should die with his people not be sent on an ark.
As for the question I personally would want people who don't complain. It sounds simple but I find those who complain tend to be very damaging to those around them and themselves.
I think we would all be surprised about how well humans can survive, so ultimately it doesn't matter what these peoples backgrounds are mostly as long as they can put things aside and get jobs done.
I was once lost in the outback (never been so thirsty in my life) and it hit me once we found someone to rescue us. I could have died because we were so focused on getting rescued and finding our way back that we didn't actually take care of ourselves. Instead we played the short game and it could have been very bad. However if I knew that i was going to the wilderness to live my focus would have changed entirely and I would definitely have done things differently.
Another thing to add is soldiers. Soldiers or anybody military have been trained to work as a machine. If you see soldiers working together it is really interesting. Kind of like ants. Military men would be invaluable I think.
Some engineers or clever fellows could be useful. If they can keep some technology running a little longer, more lives could be saved.
I'd also want to save some relics too; keep pieces of civilization safe until someone can put it back together again. We built safe places once, we could do it again.
Mr Nobody wrote: Some engineers or clever fellows could be useful. If they can keep some technology running a little longer, more lives could be saved.
I'd also want to save some relics too; keep pieces of civilization safe until someone can put it back together again.
Ohh yeah, I would definitely keep my Ork army
Side note: Did you mean "Military Men" or did you mean anyone military because realistically I would take Military women to. Not the average woman though, just the top 1%, the ones that go hard or not at all
Mr Nobody wrote: Some engineers or clever fellows could be useful. If they can keep some technology running a little longer, more lives could be saved.
I'd also want to save some relics too; keep pieces of civilization safe until someone can put it back together again.
Ohh yeah, I would definitely keep my Ork army
Side note: Did you mean "Military Men" or did you mean anyone military because realistically I would take Military women to. Not the average woman though, just the top 1%, the ones that go hard or not at all
It's just a bad habit. I have never seen a female military anything before and much of the history I enjoy reading obviously features primarily military men and thus as I type what I think etc...
Obviously a camp with only men will not work for long as a society.
I'm with ghazkuul. Prior or current military. Different fields would be good (get a variety of skills). But for the most part they won't whine like children.
I think it’s a mistake to look at just the skills needed. Humans can acquire skills and knowledge very quickly when we need to. The biggest issue we have, even today, is organisation and collective effort.
So what matters most, I think, is a structure that best produces combined effort, and an established and respected process to make sure conflicts are resolved peacefully. We get pretty heated right now over truly minor things, imagine how intense we’re going to get when we’re making decisions that affect whether or not our children will flourish or starve to death.
Probably one of the big life lessons I’ve got the hard way is that making the right decision actually doesn’t matter as much as simply making a decision, getting everyone on board, and getting started. Time lost in debate is time you will never get back, and people who fail to buy in are resources either lost or maybe even working against you. In this sense a great leader is a lot less important than a team that believes they have a great leader, if you get the distinction.
That’s why the President is important. Not because of any skill he might have, but because of the authority of the position, the status people have already granted him. It’s far from a guarantee of stability and unity, but it’s about the best chance possible in the short term.
sebster wrote: I think it’s a mistake to look at just the skills needed. Humans can acquire skills and knowledge very quickly when we need to. The biggest issue we have, even today, is organisation and collective effort.
So what matters most, I think, is a structure that best produces combined effort, and an established and respected process to make sure conflicts are resolved peacefully. We get pretty heated right now over truly minor things, imagine how intense we’re going to get when we’re making decisions that affect whether or not our children will flourish or starve to death.
Probably one of the big life lessons I’ve got the hard way is that making the right decision actually doesn’t matter as much as simply making a decision, getting everyone on board, and getting started. Time lost in debate is time you will never get back, and people who fail to buy in are resources either lost or maybe even working against you. In this sense a great leader is a lot less important than a team that believes they have a great leader, if you get the distinction.
That’s why the President is important. Not because of any skill he might have, but because of the authority of the position, the status people have already granted him. It’s far from a guarantee of stability and unity, but it’s about the best chance possible in the short term.
Our current President I would follow to hell and back!.....but only out of idle curiousity
Ghazkuul wrote: Our current President I would follow to hell and back!.....but only out of idle curiousity
Meh. You’re living a first world life in a stable society with all your needs met. Change that and watch the nonsense politics just drop away.
I would bet you don't even know what 1st 2nd and 3rd world even mean
besides that, Obama is a moron socialist with a complete lack of understanding of the last 50 years of US foreign diplomacy. I don't care about the "nonsense politics" I Just want the best person in office to make my country strong, and Obama is not that man.
The Dakka OT, ladies and gentlemen: where people can't resist showing off their Obama rage-boner no matter how off-topic or irrelevant it is to the topic at hand.
If this topic is going to go back on track, and I'm sure it won't, because soshulism; then I have a question for hotsauceman: how large is this theoretical group? How long are we expected to survive for - is this an otherwise extinction level situation, or what? Is the entire planet a radioactive clicking wasteland? Is there a survivable area we are migrating to? Because this could actually be an interesting discussion.
Ouze wrote: The Dakka OT, ladies and gentlemen: where people can't resist showing off their Obama rage-boner no matter how off-topic or irrelevant it is to the topic at hand.
If this topic is going to go back on track, and I'm sure it won't, because soshulism; then I have a question for hotsauceman: how large is this theoretical group? How long are we expected to survive for - is this an otherwise extinction level situation, or what? Is the entire planet a radioactive clicking wasteland? Is there a survivable area we are migrating to? Because this could actually be an interesting discussion.
Better make sure we stay on topic by posting a reply that is 1/2 a reply about someone else going off topic because someone discussed the president being included in the group and I have to defend "Soshulism" as much as I can.
Anyway, Back on topic. Don't include president because realistically he is useless in all matters beyond being a figurehead and annoying 1/2 the group.
I would bet you don't even know what 1st 2nd and 3rd world even mean
To be perfectly fair though, he did use the word correctly considering you're flag is the most beautiful organization of red, white, and blue. But that's as much as getting the right answer to a math problem and not knowing why.
I would bet you don't even know what 1st 2nd and 3rd world even mean
To be perfectly fair though, he did use the word correctly considering you're flag is the most beautiful organization of red, white, and blue. But that's as much as getting the right answer to a math problem and not knowing why.
50 seems like a pretty big number with a lot of options.
I think my ideal group would include, split evenly between men and women when possible:
A few small-scale farmers. I'm talking mom-and-pop types, as well as some third-world subsistence farmers\tribesmen types. Maybe a covert weed farmer as well; those guys are crafty.
A few doctors and nurses. Possibly a midwife? That might be too specialized.
A pharmacologist - this might be the wrong term, but a more generalized pharmacist.
A few fishermen
a few hunters and trappers
a few military types with backgrounds in force protection
A botanist
a general mechanic
a civil engineer
a mechanical engineer
Someone with a background in economics
A sociologist
I'm sure I'm mising some specialities but I think that's about 20 or so people right there.
Ouze wrote: 50 seems like a pretty big number with a lot of options.
I think my ideal group would include, split evenly between men and women when possible:
A few small-scale farmers. I'm talking mom-and-pop types, as well as some third-world subsistence farmers\tribesmen types. Maybe a covert weed farmer as well; those guys are crafty.
A few doctors and nurses. Possibly a midwife? That might be too specialized.
A pharmacologist - this might be the wrong term, but a more generalized pharmacist.
A few fishermen
a few hunters and trappers
a few military types with backgrounds in force protection
A botanist
a general mechanic
a civil engineer
a mechanical engineer
Someone with a background in economics
A sociologist
I'm sure I'm mising some specialities but I think that's about 20 or so people right there.
well in my general experience the VAST Majority of military men in the Military are also at least one of the following, Hunters, trappers, fishers, farmers or mechanics
hotsauceman1 wrote: But why all military? It isnt a operation, but continuation of the human race, we would want a varied group
ohh im not saying take all military, im saying you can multi task military men with several jobs. that way you can double up on useful skills in several key areas :-P
Ouze wrote: 50 seems like a pretty big number with a lot of options.
I think my ideal group would include, split evenly between men and women when possible:
A few small-scale farmers. I'm talking mom-and-pop types, as well as some third-world subsistence farmers\tribesmen types. Maybe a covert weed farmer as well; those guys are crafty.
A few doctors and nurses. Possibly a midwife? That might be too specialized.
A pharmacologist - this might be the wrong term, but a more generalized pharmacist.
A few fishermen
a few hunters and trappers
a few military types with backgrounds in force protection
A botanist
a general mechanic
a civil engineer
a mechanical engineer
Someone with a background in economics
A sociologist
I'm sure I'm mising some specialities but I think that's about 20 or so people right there.
Besides all the people with "hard" skills, I'd want to pick at least a few who are also musicians or entertainers of some sort, and artists, writers, historians, and teachers.
If it's really a post-apocalypse type situation, keeping morale high is going to be critical.
Hordini wrote: Besides all the people with "hard" skills, I'd want to pick at least a few who are also musicians or entertainers of some sort, and artists, writers, historians, and teachers.
If it's really a post-apocalypse type situation, keeping morale high is going to be critical.
only if they also had a hard skill that was useful. otherwise to hell with them
Hordini wrote: Besides all the people with "hard" skills, I'd want to pick at least a few who are also musicians or entertainers of some sort, and artists, writers, historians, and teachers.
If it's really a post-apocalypse type situation, keeping morale high is going to be critical.
only if they also had a hard skill that was useful. otherwise to hell with them
They'd ideally also have a hard skill, but it would be good to have at least a few who are primarily artists of some sort. Even if they don't, they'll be able to work, and you'll need people to tend to and teach the children that will be had.
The new civilization isn't going to last very long if everyone is so depressed and traumatized that they decide to, as Jihadin would put it, opt themselves out. They're going to need an outlet.
hotsauceman1 wrote: From what I saw in the show it was less than 50 people, moved to another planet, with likely no way to get back
Same with sliders.
Yeah, of course it should be noted that in the show humanity isn't confined to Earth. Humans, of some form or another or a derivative like the Jaff'ar, are pretty much one of the more common intergalactic species thanks to the Stargates. So picking up recruits from other planets is an option. Not to be relied upon, but its there.
Anyway, there would be little point in saving the existing command structure. You'd want a separate group that doesn't change every 4-8 years. The group would also have to be quite large.
So assuming we have the Stargate situation, you'd have a core of people who are the leadership and are aware of the general plan. Then you'd have more groups, with multiple in-built redundancies, that have necessary skills but aren't aware of exactly what they've signed up for. Just simply kept on alert to be ready to go at a moments notice.
Say you have the command group. This would be maybe 1-200 people. You'd have the actual leaders of this emergency evacuation plan, a few military units specially trained to deal with the challenges you'd face, as well as some advanced technical specialists. This group would further be broken down into smaller self-sufficient units that could function independently if others got wiped out. And each would command one of the larger groups who are kept in the dark.
These larger groups would be a little more fluid and more basic skills. Simple hunting and survivalist techniques, and ordinary military units. Ordinary people plus some who have specialized skills.
In addition to these planned groups, you would also have plans in place to evacuate civilians from the general area if possible. Along with any other military units you could rescue too.
There would need to be several bases preexisting to be locations to move to, or possibly move to several. These bases would have supplies and machinery prebuilt and onsite, along with routinely updated technical data. Basically download the internet
To give further redundance, when the evacuation took place they would take more supplies with them. Enough to set up entirely new bases if the old ones are compromised.
Ghazkuul wrote: I would bet you don't even know what 1st 2nd and 3rd world even mean
I have no idea what that response has to do with anything. Even if I didn’t understand 1st, 2nd and 3rd, either in the original geo-political meaning or the current socio-economic one, it wouldn’t change a damn thing about how people’s priorities (and therefore politics) change when their circumstances massively change.
besides that, Obama is a moron socialist with a complete lack of understanding of the last 50 years of US foreign diplomacy. I don't care about the "nonsense politics" I Just want the best person in office to make my country strong, and Obama is not that man.
You’re missing the point entirely. Any current political beliefs will just become irrelevant. Authority is what will matter, and there is no position in the US with as much authority as the President.
To walk you through this, imagine the zombie apocalypse just happened. Cities are in chaos, the dead are roaming the streets. You have your family huddled in the basement of your house, but supplies are running low. On the radio you hear of a safe zone, where what remains of the government has commanded the military to form a defensive perimeter, while the civil services begins to establish new infrastructure, and deliver food and medicine to the people who reach the camp. You hear this is being run under the current president, and you say ‘oh I won’t take my family there, as that president is a moron socialist’.
Ghazkuul wrote: I would bet you don't even know what 1st 2nd and 3rd world even mean
I have no idea what that response has to do with anything. Even if I didn’t understand 1st, 2nd and 3rd, either in the original geo-political meaning or the current socio-economic one, it wouldn’t change a damn thing about how people’s priorities (and therefore politics) change when their circumstances massively change.
besides that, Obama is a moron socialist with a complete lack of understanding of the last 50 years of US foreign diplomacy. I don't care about the "nonsense politics" I Just want the best person in office to make my country strong, and Obama is not that man.
You’re missing the point entirely. Any current political beliefs will just become irrelevant. Authority is what will matter, and there is no position in the US with as much authority as the President.
To walk you through this, imagine the zombie apocalypse just happened. Cities are in chaos, the dead are roaming the streets. You have your family huddled in the basement of your house, but supplies are running low. On the radio you hear of a safe zone, where what remains of the government has commanded the military to form a defensive perimeter, while the civil services begins to establish new infrastructure, and deliver food and medicine to the people who reach the camp. You hear this is being run under the current president, and you say ‘oh I won’t take my family there, as that president is a moron socialist’.
your over estimating obama's intelligence if you think he could pull that off. I would flee to California and link up with General Mattis and bring the hurt to the zombie buggers
Ghazkuul wrote: your over estimating obama's intelligence if you think he could pull that off. I would flee to California and link up with General Mattis and bring the hurt to the zombie buggers
Obama's personal attributes are irrelevant. There is simply authority in the position he holds, and that authority is a powerful and important thing in itself.
If society crumbled, then individual soldiers would look to their next in command for guidance on how to react, who would in turn look up to their next in command. And the civil service would work the same. Expecting Obama to be the figurehead of the organised response has nothing to do with Obama’s personal characteristics, and everything to do with a basic recognition of how society works.
You say you'd follow General Mattis. You would trek to California, arrive on the door of his home, and ask him what his orders are. And General Mattis, summing all his impressive personal and military attributes, would then lead his grand army of you. Just you. Because that dude has been retired for a few years, and now has slightly less authority than the doorman at the Hyatt. Armies don't function by soldiers picking and choosing who they're most like to lead. You just hoping that that will change because you don't like the current president is an exercise in being zombie food.
Ghazkuul wrote: your over estimating obama's intelligence if you think he could pull that off. I would flee to California and link up with General Mattis and bring the hurt to the zombie buggers
Obama's personal attributes are irrelevant. There is simply authority in the position he holds, and that authority is a powerful and important thing in itself.
If society crumbled, then individual soldiers would look to their next in command for guidance on how to react, who would in turn look up to their next in command. And the civil service would work the same. Expecting Obama to be the figurehead of the organised response has nothing to do with Obama’s personal characteristics, and everything to do with a basic recognition of how society works.
You say you'd follow General Mattis. You would trek to California, arrive on the door of his home, and ask him what his orders are. And General Mattis, summing all his impressive personal and military attributes, would then lead his grand army of you. Just you. Because that dude has been retired for a few years, and now has slightly less authority than the doorman at the Hyatt. Armies don't function by soldiers picking and choosing who they're most like to lead. You just hoping that that will change because you don't like the current president is an exercise in being zombie food.
im guessing your expertise is based on years of study and first hand experience
General Mattis will never retire from being Chesty Pullers Bastard Son and therefore a Bad ass. Their was a campaign to have his name written in on the last election. He garnered several thousand votes even though his name wasn't even on the ballot Trust me tens of thousands of marines who have either known him or served with him would flock to his banner. Furthermore you overestimate people if you think they would blindly follow someone during a massive crisis like that. History has proven that in a case where a political figure isn't up to the task of a serious catastrophe he is retired/relieved or replaced. And furthermore you are saying that this global catastrophe that ended civilization as we know it didn't kill the C&C so orders would have to be verbal at best. in most of these scenario's DC is gone and the cabinet is destroyed, factor that in.
Ghazkuul wrote: im guessing your expertise is based on years of study and first hand experience
I take it we’re expected to defer to your first hand experience of living through complete social collapse?
Furthermore you overestimate people if you think they would blindly follow someone during a massive crisis like that.
No, you just continue to operate within the chain of command as you did before. Think about it like this – Obama replaced Bush, and many soldiers with strong Republican loyalties were now under a president they didn’t like. But they didn’t stop operating as soldiers, because whether or not they liked the president meant gak when their direct superior gave them an order.
That’s how society works – the formal structures remain in place whether you like the leader or not. And in the formal structure that is the US government, both civil and military, the chain of command stops with the President. Whether or not he's a good president is quite meaningless compared to the importance of having someone clearly in that role.
History has proven that in a case where a political figure isn't up to the task of a serious catastrophe he is retired/relieved or replaced.
Yes, we retire, relieve and replace generals. But we maintain the chain of command. How are you not fething getting this?
And furthermore you are saying that this global catastrophe that ended civilization as we know it didn't kill the C&C so orders would have to be verbal at best. in most of these scenario's DC is gone and the cabinet is destroyed, factor that in.
I’m going to guess you’re aware of the presidential line of succession and just aren’t thinking very clearly right now.
Am I the only one who finds this idea daft? You want people so used to a tech society, get dumped into a non-tech world. likely loosing acess to their tech, to live in a campsite?
Eventually you will run out of vaccines, anti-biotics, food, even CLOTHes. I get that certain people are important, but arent survivalists what you want really?
The idea is that you bring people and supplies meant to rebuild these things as fast as possible. The point of your anti-apocalypse program isn't to just to assure that humans a species get to survive by rolling back to the hunter-gatherer days but that you're able to get something resembling society back up and running again. A
It'd be useful to know how many people we get, and what sort of supplies we're allowed. However I'll assume get ~1,000 people and everyone comes with basics for their job and we've got a about a years worth of supplies for the entire population to live off of to kick-start the process, once we make landing at our new home. Changes to these assumptions would change how I'd break things down, but they're what I'm using for now.
First off no young males, between say 16-35. This is by far the demographic most likely to destabilize any situation. They're the most prone to risk-taking and just generally not a group I'd want to be left in a newly created power vacuum where cooperation is going to be central.
Secondly, nobody really old. Say, over 60 or so. Supplies and time are going to be valuable assets and would be wasted on caring for the aged.
More women than men, but not grossly lopsided. The gender balance is going to come back in a few generations anyway and I'd prefer to avoid picking up any super weird cultural baggage from something like a reproductive ideal 5:1 ratio anything. Younger is probably better than older for women, if only because we need some vigorous young people and I'm excluding the men from being in that category for stability reasons. So we get something like:
60% Adult Female. Ideally 24-32 years of age.
30% Adult Male. Ideally 36-44 years of age.
10% Children. They may seem like a liability, but they're actually very important for creating stability. Caring for children and keeping them safe is an important motivator for people. With kids around people will behave more prudently.
I'd probably want two experienced political leaders but not much more than that. Preferably ones with a proven track record compromise, taking advisers seriously and being firm without trying to strong-arm personal agendas or pet projects. They should have close to absolute authority, with a sort of cabinet under them drawn from the appropriate skill sets. This is the kind of emergency that leaves no room for debate or hand-wringing, but would also be ruined by a hard head.
In terms of occupational breakdown.
50% Laborers: Individuals with a basic education, but nothing much beyond high school or special skills. Chosen primarily based on health and tests for work ethic and adherence to authority.
15% Skilled Workers: Mechanics, Carpenters, Plumbers, Welders, Miners etc... people with specific skillsets useful for extracting resources and rebuilding basic infrastructure fast as possible.
10% Engineers/Mathematicians/Scientists: We're going to need to hold on to our accumulated knowledge if we don't want to be knocked back into the stone age. Having a large "Brain Bank" to work on problems as they come up will be vital.
10% Misc: Anything that doesn't fall under the categories. All sort of things from Agricultural experts to folks good at marketing & motivation.
5% Medical: Surgeons, Doctors, Nurses: These need for these people should be obvious and.
5% Academics: Historians, Authors, Economists etc..
5% Managers: Just people who are good at managing others and logistics.
Of course everyone from the non-laborer sections would be expected to labor as needed, it's just that they aren't being chosen specifically only for their ability to labor.
a group as small as 50 peeps...humanity is done for...reproduction rate won´t be ever enough to have the planet repopulated again... and if...because the remaining were really bored and did nothing else than hop on each other, it still would mean we only get something with mainly teeth as the gene pool would be so laid dry after the next three or ten generations... it wouldn´t matter at all...
Viktor von Domm wrote: a group as small as 50 peeps...humanity is done for...reproduction rate won´t be ever enough to have the planet repopulated again... and if...because the remaining were really bored and did nothing else than hop on each other, it still would mean we only get something with mainly teeth as the gene pool would be so laid dry after the next three or ten generations... it wouldn´t matter at all...
Clearly we're going to need an island, some tiki torches, and bikinis. Keep you bunkers, your tunnels, your mines. I'm picking Maui.
Looking past survivalists... There are skills that we would lose forever in any situation like this, I'd want to think about minimising that.
We're already at a point in the modern world where folk are retiring and then being called back to pass their knowledge down - chemistry, construction, even some specialised methods of farming.
And personally, on a character profile alone, mothers and fathers who've had more than one child and coped well. There's a strength in both, and an adaptability.
islands are per se the best... you see who comes and goes...and it provides you more easily with proteins through fishing than through hunt...
and a place full of bikinis is likely near haven anyway^^
Viktor von Domm wrote: a group as small as 50 peeps...humanity is done for...reproduction rate won´t be ever enough to have the planet repopulated again... and if...because the remaining were really bored and did nothing else than hop on each other, it still would mean we only get something with mainly teeth as the gene pool would be so laid dry after the next three or ten generations... it wouldn´t matter at all...
Very true. Even my assumption of 1000 people is a pretty shallow gene pool and that's with active management. You'd need a few thousand if you wanted a viable population without intrusive controls on who you have kids with and when.
Honestly if we've got a Stargate and the backing of the US Government and we're really interested in having a backup, I can't imagine it being sensible to have anything but a pre-built site with room for ~5000, with 1-2k in regular residence. Generators, farming, resource extraction and transportation etc... should already be in be place before we have to move the full backup population over.
Viktor von Domm wrote: islands are per se the best... you see who comes and goes...and it provides you more easily with proteins through fishing than through hunt...
and a place full of bikinis is likely near haven anyway^^
Viktor von Domm wrote: a group as small as 50 peeps...humanity is done for...reproduction rate won´t be ever enough to have the planet repopulated again... and if...because the remaining were really bored and did nothing else than hop on each other, it still would mean we only get something with mainly teeth as the gene pool would be so laid dry after the next three or ten generations... it wouldn´t matter at all...
Good point, I hadn't considered the mathematical reproduction element.
Viktor von Domm wrote: a group as small as 50 peeps...humanity is done for...reproduction rate won´t be ever enough to have the planet repopulated again... and if...because the remaining were really bored and did nothing else than hop on each other, it still would mean we only get something with mainly teeth as the gene pool would be so laid dry after the next three or ten generations... it wouldn´t matter at all...
Good point, I hadn't considered the mathematical reproduction element.
You've obviously not accounted for Kronk, who single "handedly" keeping the European birthrate in balance.
Viktor von Domm wrote: a group as small as 50 peeps...humanity is done for...reproduction rate won´t be ever enough to have the planet repopulated again... and if...because the remaining were really bored and did nothing else than hop on each other, it still would mean we only get something with mainly teeth as the gene pool would be so laid dry after the next three or ten generations... it wouldn´t matter at all...
Very true. Even my assumption of 1000 people is a pretty shallow gene pool and that's with active management. You'd need a few thousand if you wanted a viable population without intrusive controls on who you have kids with and when.
Honestly if we've got a Stargate and the backing of the US Government and we're really interested in having a backup, I can't imagine it being sensible to have anything but a pre-built site with room for ~5000, with 1-2k in regular residence. Generators, farming, resource extraction and transportation etc... should already be in be place before we have to move the full backup population over.
The minimum viable population for humans is somewhere between 150 and 3000, depending on who you ask and how you calculate it.
As to who, I would say you need as many experts and specialists as possible.
Off the top of my head I would want, doctors, nurses, engineers, builders, plumbers, electricians, mechanics, farmers, hunters, fishermen, carpenters, chemists & pharmacologists as a priority. People who have practical skills that can be used to make things, fix things and do useful stuff. Probably a gunsmith and a butcher too.
If numbers are limited I would not want lots of military people in that number as people have suggested. Possibly one person who has some understanding of deference and security, but I think I would prefer an experienced police officer to do that. Ultimately this would not be a military campaign, but a re-building situation, and you need experts who can teach others, and as much redundancy as you can get in your skill spread.
I think the real answer is "whoever the hell you can get" but if we are talking about "build a bunker and fill it with who you need" I would not be looking for military. I would however include someone who is very senior (a high ranking politician or civil servant) who can take charge and direct, as long as they were under orders that the first thing to do is to organize proper leadership, which may or may not be them, but has the power to immediately take charge and implement this.
What sort of apocalypse are we talking about? Nuclear winter? Zombie Apocalypse? Instability in genetics causing negligible birth rate? Comet striking the earth? Global pandemic?
Where will the survivors be living? What is the terrain like? What is the climate? How did they survive? Are there other groups of survivors?
There are a lot of variable that are missing from the equation, but I think at the very least the following is needed;
- medical personnel
- engineering personnel
- people with survival knowledge
- security personnel
The question was asked why would people would think the military is the best answer. To me it would seem that the discipline, physical fitness, and the intermixing of skill sets (combat engineers fulfill security and some engineering) would be advantageous. Although knowing you are the last remaining humans on the planet adds an element of mental stress that no one has had to deal with prior.
Viktor von Domm wrote: a group as small as 50 peeps...humanity is done for...reproduction rate won´t be ever enough to have the planet repopulated again... and if...because the remaining were really bored and did nothing else than hop on each other, it still would mean we only get something with mainly teeth as the gene pool would be so laid dry after the next three or ten generations... it wouldn´t matter at all...
Very true. Even my assumption of 1000 people is a pretty shallow gene pool and that's with active management. You'd need a few thousand if you wanted a viable population without intrusive controls on who you have kids with and when.
Honestly if we've got a Stargate and the backing of the US Government and we're really interested in having a backup, I can't imagine it being sensible to have anything but a pre-built site with room for ~5000, with 1-2k in regular residence. Generators, farming, resource extraction and transportation etc... should already be in be place before we have to move the full backup population over.
The minimum viable population for humans is somewhere between 150 and 3000, depending on who you ask and how you calculate it.
As to who, I would say you need as many experts and specialists as possible.
Off the top of my head I would want, doctors, nurses, engineers, builders, plumbers, electricians, mechanics, farmers, hunters, fishermen, carpenters, chemists & pharmacologists as a priority. People who have practical skills that can be used to make things, fix things and do useful stuff. Probably a gunsmith and a butcher too.
If numbers are limited I would not want lots of military people in that number as people have suggested. Possibly one person who has some understanding of deference and security, but I think I would prefer an experienced police officer to do that. Ultimately this would not be a military campaign, but a re-building situation, and you need experts who can teach others, and as much redundancy as you can get in your skill spread.
I think the real answer is "whoever the hell you can get" but if we are talking about "build a bunker and fill it with who you need" I would not be looking for military. I would however include someone who is very senior (a high ranking politician or civil servant) who can take charge and direct, as long as they were under orders that the first thing to do is to organize proper leadership, which may or may not be them, but has the power to immediately take charge and implement this.
The number I've heard for the minimum population you want to have a nice robust diverse sampling without needing artificial muddling that is managed pairings is ~2000. Maybe that's bunk, maybe not. At any rate I think if we can avoid it we don't want ot be going for "minimum viable" we want to aim to be well above the minimum healthy, robust and redudant.
I'd also agree on the military point. In a universe where our little pocket of population are the only humans in existence there just isn't any need for a military. Some general peackeeping, police would be nice but if we go with my idea and don't allow any males under 35 or so, the need for them is greatly reduced. You don't need anyone to keep the peace when nobody wants to break it in the first place, when you don't have any young men there isn't anyone to break the peace. Pretty much all social instability & unrest is caused by young men. Without them around we can count on things to stay basically peaceful barring huge unforeseen external pressures.
but if we go with my idea and don't allow any males under 35 or so, the need for them is greatly reduced. Pretty much all social instability & unrest is caused by young men. Without them around we can count on things to stay basically peaceful barring huge unforeseen external pressures.
if the peeps try to multiply after the new start... new young men are hopefully happening...i know many problems start with young men and their bubbling hormones....but for the right mix we need them too... they have the best fertility...
also... it is quite often that the majority happens to look down on younger men /boys because of their boyish nature... in former times there was no ADHD issue or something similar...
but if we go with my idea and don't allow any males under 35 or so, the need for them is greatly reduced. Pretty much all social instability & unrest is caused by young men. Without them around we can count on things to stay basically peaceful barring huge unforeseen external pressures.
if the peeps try to multiply after the new start... new young men are hopefully happening...i know many problems start with young men and their bubbling hormones....but for the right mix we need them too... they have the best fertility...
also... it is quite often that the majority happens to look down on younger men /boys because of their boyish nature... in former times there was no ADHD issue or something similar...
Look at the end of the day older guys can take care of that. Sure you're going to have a couple duds in the 40+ crowd, but they've still got plenty of good swimmers. I can't see any reproductive benefits outweighing the sheer risk of violence and general belligerence brought about by bringing in men in their teens and 20s. The simple fact is you take an account of every person dead at the hands of another person in history, 95% of those hands belonged to young men. What you lose in vigor you make 10 times over in stability and perspective.
The simple fact is you take an account of every person dead at the hands of another person in history, 95% of those hands belonged to young men.
where do you get those numbers from?... and how do we assume they did it own their own free will and weren´t forced to do so during war?... and history means which time scale in this statistic?
Viktor von Domm wrote: a group as small as 50 peeps...humanity is done for...reproduction rate won´t be ever enough to have the planet repopulated again... and if...because the remaining were really bored and did nothing else than hop on each other, it still would mean we only get something with mainly teeth as the gene pool would be so laid dry after the next three or ten generations... it wouldn´t matter at all...
Very true. Even my assumption of 1000 people is a pretty shallow gene pool and that's with active management. You'd need a few thousand if you wanted a viable population without intrusive controls on who you have kids with and when.
Honestly if we've got a Stargate and the backing of the US Government and we're really interested in having a backup, I can't imagine it being sensible to have anything but a pre-built site with room for ~5000, with 1-2k in regular residence. Generators, farming, resource extraction and transportation etc... should already be in be place before we have to move the full backup population over.
The minimum viable population for humans is somewhere between 150 and 3000, depending on who you ask and how you calculate it.
As to who, I would say you need as many experts and specialists as possible.
Off the top of my head I would want, doctors, nurses, engineers, builders, plumbers, electricians, mechanics, farmers, hunters, fishermen, carpenters, chemists & pharmacologists as a priority. People who have practical skills that can be used to make things, fix things and do useful stuff. Probably a gunsmith and a butcher too.
If numbers are limited I would not want lots of military people in that number as people have suggested. Possibly one person who has some understanding of deference and security, but I think I would prefer an experienced police officer to do that. Ultimately this would not be a military campaign, but a re-building situation, and you need experts who can teach others, and as much redundancy as you can get in your skill spread.
I think the real answer is "whoever the hell you can get" but if we are talking about "build a bunker and fill it with who you need" I would not be looking for military. I would however include someone who is very senior (a high ranking politician or civil servant) who can take charge and direct, as long as they were under orders that the first thing to do is to organize proper leadership, which may or may not be them, but has the power to immediately take charge and implement this.
The number I've heard for the minimum population you want to have a nice robust diverse sampling without needing artificial muddling that is managed pairings is ~2000. Maybe that's bunk, maybe not. At any rate I think if we can avoid it we don't want ot be going for "minimum viable" we want to aim to be well above the minimum healthy, robust and redudant.
I'd also agree on the military point. In a universe where our little pocket of population are the only humans in existence there just isn't any need for a military. Some general peackeeping, police would be nice but if we go with my idea and don't allow any males under 35 or so, the need for them is greatly reduced. You don't need anyone to keep the peace when nobody wants to break it in the first place, when you don't have any young men there isn't anyone to break the peace. Pretty much all social instability & unrest is caused by young men. Without them around we can count on things to stay basically peaceful barring huge unforeseen external pressures.
you realize older people commit crimes all the time and create more GLOBAL instability then all the 16-24 year olds combined
you realize older people commit crimes all the time and create more GLOBAL instability then all the 16-24 year olds combined
If you're talking national-level organized violence, then sure it's largely older individuals that have the power required to instigate big conflicts.
However if we're talking a small scale population that's more/less a single organizational unit: A few thousand people in our new colony, young men will be the biggest destabilizing force. 90%+ of murderers are young men. They basically have a monopoly an escalating personal conflicts into cyclical vendettas and physical retaliation, sexual assault, and casual belligerence. What I'm concerned with is violent crime by individuals and small groups, often for personal reasons. This is what would destabilize our young colony and it's the sort of thing that's almost exclusively done by young males.
you realize older people commit crimes all the time and create more GLOBAL instability then all the 16-24 year olds combined
If you're talking national-level organized violence, then sure it's largely older individual that have the power required to instigate big conflicts.
However if we're talking a small scale population that's more/less a single organizational unit: A few thousand people in our new colony young men will be the biggest destabilizing force. 90%+ of murderers are young men. They basically have a monopoly an escalating personal conflicts into cyclical vendettas and physical retaliation, sexual assault, and casual belligerence. What I'm concerned with is violent crime by individuals and small groups, often for personal reasons. This is what would destabilize our young colony and it's the sort of thing that's almost exclusively done by young males.
Most crime and "trouble making" is caused by poverty or idleness. Of which there will be close to none in this situation. Everyone will be too busy trying to survive to cause these kinds of issues. Except possibly when it comes to competing for mates. But it won't be the huge issue you think it will.
Human society functioned just fine in small bands, all of which contained young men, for thousands of years. In fact, the portion of young men has only gone down since people are living longer. It used to be you were lucky to see 50, and most would barely make it to 40.
You do want some older men to give some experience, but its perfectly fine to take young men in their 20s.
Not to mention that in a post apocalypse world where medicine is scarce you are going to want a young healthy population to work the most and not suffer as much as older individuals.
More seriously, the genetic diversity problem can easily be solved by frozen gametes.
Too Risky!
Even a short power outage, minor handling error, earthquake or severe weather event could wipe those out. You don't want to be putting all your eggs in one fragile, power-dependent basket.
If you have a sufficient number of fertile men and women, all of your eggs would not be in one basket, but you would be able to achieve a much higher degree of genetic diversity than whatever your living population offerd.
Have any of you read Seveneves by Neal Stephenson? The first
2/3s of the book is how humanity tries to survive an apocalyptic
event, the last third is the result. Fascinating stuff.
Personally, I would take as many people as I could, and as much machinery (agriculture and raw material gatering and processing) as possible. Setting up food and raw material conversion would be a priority. Once your food source and the ability to create technologically advanced materials and items is secured, the reliance on old school survivalist skills is significantly reduced and the continuance of civilised society becomes much more likely. Imagine a human based von neumann machine
Based on this, I would only want a handful of survival experts, mostly as a training resource in the short term and to help identify safe locations/plants/etc in the long term, and as a fall back plan incase the technology breaks down.
I would have a similar small pool of experts in agriculture and livestock for similar reasons as the survival people; to teach others practical skills and to manage this aspect of the colony.
The rest of the colony would ideally be made up of reasonably skilled workers, scientists, engineers, skilled trades, etc.
People would be picked based on field, skill, and abilities to work in a team and also teach; survival of human knowledge and skill will rely on being able to pass it on and work both at a practical and theoretical basis. Ideally families with children to increase chance of stability.
As above, I would choose a small police force for defense (assuming a reasonably hospitable world) and general security. I would hesitate putting in soldiers.
Ideally frozen gametes of both human and livestock to rapidly boost population and diversity.
The people they picked WERE a combination of Scientists and Survivalists.
They were a large group of MILITARY, protecting the Scientists and Doctors.
And, just because you are a Scientist, does NOT mean you are "Tech Dependent."
What is important is protecting the people who know WHAT needs to be re-built (and how to re-build it), when they have to work from nearly nothing.
Science is a methodology that is very complex, and very difficult to learn well.
Which is why there is a VAST difference between the Computer Scientists we have running research programs and the Code Monkeys who churn out billions of lines of code every year, despite having only an Associates Degree, or a Coding Certificate.
And that is in a piddling Science degree like CS.
When you get to the REAL Sciences (Physics, Chemistry, Biology), then you get a LOT more than just people who know how to use a machine.
These people, combined with mathematicians would be the fastest means to re-building a civilization, because they are the foundations of Engineering.
You take just Engineers, and you have no Sciences to further their knowledge. You basically stagnate.
But, if you take the Scientists, Engineering is just applying Sciences on/in Scale.
And, yes, you would want to take a few Entertainers.
I would just point out that engineering and engineers are scientists too; unfortunately the title has been coopted to mean "anyone who can hold a spanner".
In Seveneves, the apocalyptic event is something explodes the
moon. Everyone think it's fascinating, but then the scientists
figure out that a large amount of debris is eventually going to
ruin earth's atmosphere in the span of two years and so humanity
has to get its act together in that time.
well if we loose the moon we have more pressing problems than just loosing over a timespan of two years our atmosphere... spin and course of the earth would change... i bet that temperature would shift in an unfriendly way, and with the change in gravitation we would get floods and quakes amass...i doubt that anything substantial could be built or planned to get humanity as such to somewhere else...(read a helpful part of humanity...)
When preparing for an unknown cataclysm- you'd need learners, and teachers. The finest mechanic in the world is less desirable than a decent mechanic who can train others- and wouldn't mind learning how to farm in their off day. You need people with enough skills to maintain technology as long as you can, and transition into a lower technology as the need arises. Along the way, you must ensure that specialties are not lost. Particularly to an accident. If there's an incident with a scythe and your designated farmer goes down... is that it, or can 3 cross trained specialist make it through to harvest?
Identifying folk like this is more difficult. You really want people currently passing along their skills, while simultaneously acquiring new ones, ideally in very different disciplines.
malfred wrote: Have any of you read Seveneves by Neal Stephenson? The first
2/3s of the book is how humanity tries to survive an apocalyptic
event, the last third is the result. Fascinating stuff.
stanman wrote: I'd prefer to just have everyone gone, cleanse humanity with fire and get it over with.
And onto the government watchlist you go...
This site had a fun article on the subject of guys who go on about how great it'll be when the apocalypse comes, because they'll totally be so prepared and it'll be frickin awesome!
Note, the article's called "The Post-Apocalyptic World Sucks Balls"... It does make the point, if you're so eager to experience such a scenario, then take a wee trip to a developing world's ghetto. The video games don't really put across the stink of all those shanty towns. =P
stanman wrote: I'd prefer to just have everyone gone, cleanse humanity with fire and get it over with.
And onto the government watchlist you go...
This site had a fun article on the subject of guys who go on about how great it'll be when the apocalypse comes, because they'll totally be so prepared and it'll be frickin awesome!
Note, the article's called "The Post-Apocalyptic World Sucks Balls"... It does make the point, if you're so eager to experience such a scenario, then take a wee trip to a developing world's ghetto. The video games don't really put across the stink of all those shanty towns. =P
spend 6 months in afghanistan and you will never want that to spread
stanman wrote: I'd prefer to just have everyone gone, cleanse humanity with fire and get it over with.
And onto the government watchlist you go...
This site had a fun article on the subject of guys who go on about how great it'll be when the apocalypse comes, because they'll totally be so prepared and it'll be frickin awesome!
Note, the article's called "The Post-Apocalyptic World Sucks Balls"... It does make the point, if you're so eager to experience such a scenario, then take a wee trip to a developing world's ghetto. The video games don't really put across the stink of all those shanty towns. =P
Speaking off, did you guys hear Fallout 4 is gonna come with Scratch and Sniff cards?
stanman wrote: I'd prefer to just have everyone gone, cleanse humanity with fire and get it over with.
And onto the government watchlist you go...
This site had a fun article on the subject of guys who go on about how great it'll be when the apocalypse comes, because they'll totally be so prepared and it'll be frickin awesome!
Note, the article's called "The Post-Apocalyptic World Sucks Balls"... It does make the point, if you're so eager to experience such a scenario, then take a wee trip to a developing world's ghetto. The video games don't really put across the stink of all those shanty towns. =P
spend 6 months in afghanistan and you will never want that to spread
Six months eh
36 months in Afghanistan
24 months in Iraq
Which can be
Afghanistan = Battlefield Earth
Iraq = Thunder Dome
Edit
Let's go with a good size asteroid nailing some country putting the Earth in a semi winter freeze eh
Well, nothing on that order would wipe over everything. I'm sure the government has plenty of spare computers safely squirreled away in EMP shielded bunkers. And even if every electronic component was wiped, it wouldn't be too difficult for many people to bodge functioning circuits back together to get the system running again. It might take a few years to get back to where we were, and our markets would totally collapse, but it wouldn't mean we'd be back to the stone age.
Evil Lamp 6 wrote: Is it bad that when playing Fallout 3, I always wanted to join the Enclave? Screw the Brotherhood of Steel, let me join and fight for the Enclave!
Yes? 0.o
New Vegas was the game which humanised them, all the other ones had them as fascist genocidal maniacs... So ah. ...
SilverMK2 wrote: I would just point out that engineering and engineers are scientists too; unfortunately the title has been coopted to mean "anyone who can hold a spanner".
Erhm.... No, You can have scientists who are engineers (they hold a PhD), but an Engineer isn't a Scientist. The curriculum is completely different, and does not contain any of the philosophy of Science classes necessary for the Sciences.
This is why there is a distinction between an EE and a CS degree at the undergraduate level (or between a Biologist, and a Bio-engineer. Or a Mechanist (Mechanical Physics) and a Mechanical Engineer, and so on)
At the graduate level, the two are pretty much indistinguishable in general terms (although in the specifics still rather distinct).
I am not talking about Mechanics (guys who hold wrenches/spanners - not Mechanical Engineers). Mechanics usually do not do things like Structural Analysis using software simulations of the components they deal with (buildings, aircraft, pipes, turbines, dams, bridges, tunnels, railroad engines, windmills, spacecraft, etc.). They just take a mechanical object and put it in working order.
This does not mean that a Mechanic is uneducated, like a Contractor building a house, they often are required to know how to read technical specifications.
But an Engineer will know how to create those specifications.
As for the distinctions between a Scientist and an Engineer.
An engineer will know how to do basic analysis (which sounds more simplistic than it is "Basic Analysis" is horrifically complex), but will likely not know how to set up double-blind controls for an experiment, and might not have had the statistical breadth to understand how to interpret the data from an experiment.
There is a reason why the Engineering Schools at Universities is separate from the Sciences (Letters & Sciences). Because Engineers are not Scientists and Scientists are not Engineers (although some Interdisciplinary Programs are beginning to bridge the two).
stanman wrote: I'd prefer to just have everyone gone, cleanse humanity with fire and get it over with.
And onto the government watchlist you go...
This site had a fun article on the subject of guys who go on about how great it'll be when the apocalypse comes, because they'll totally be so prepared and it'll be frickin awesome!
Note, the article's called "The Post-Apocalyptic World Sucks Balls"... It does make the point, if you're so eager to experience such a scenario, then take a wee trip to a developing world's ghetto. The video games don't really put across the stink of all those shanty towns. =P
spend 6 months in afghanistan and you will never want that to spread
I spent about three months there in 1987-89.
To say that the society has degenerated would be an understatement.
All of us working on the ground were like "We need to just let the Soviets have Afghanistan. These guys we are working with are just going to feth it all to hell."
But the bosses said "Communism is Bad, mKay! Apple Pie! Mom! America!" and the place went to hell.
It was already pretty bad, but the cities still had modern centers that had not yet been destroyed.
But out East (nearer to China) in both counties (Afghanistan and Pakistan) they were still living in the Stone Age.
It was heart-wrenching.
It made me VERY AWARE of the differences between Enlightenment and non-Enlightenment societies (South America and the Asian Pacific Rim would further solidify that awareness).
And some of the gak we found in the Mountains of South America (things people were doing - imitating the Mezo-American Cultures) was just horrific.
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post: And in the event of a large-scale EMP Event, we would be RAPIDLY reduced to a society like that in a Video Game, where you would have this walled-off city full of technological marvels, while most of the population outside would die-off, and regress to an agrarian society (probably feudal, since that seems to be the point of lowest energy).
BeAfraid wrote: Erhm.... No, You can have scientists who are engineers (they hold a PhD), but an Engineer isn't a Scientist. The curriculum is completely different, and does not contain any of the philosophy of Science classes necessary for the Sciences.
Erm... I am both an engineer and a scientist. And a clinician and mechanic too...
And I dont know what scientific or engineering courses you have been on, but two of my masters are classified as masters of science (one in Biomedical Engineering, one in Clinical Engineering), and my third masters is classified as a masters of engineering (biomedical engineering). All three qualifications, from three different institutions, fused engineering and science together. One cannot be an engineer without also being a scientist.
Engineers have to be able to analyse and interpret data and set up trials exactly the same as scientists do. In fact, engineers are often able to design very statistically efficient trials as industry regularly carries out quality assurance and no one likes wasting time and money testing products and production methods
And just as an aside I do practical and design engineering, clinical research, and engineering based scientific research. As I was trained to do (and am inclined to do)... as an ENGINEER, and a SCIENTIST.
Jihadin wrote: Think some of you all is rebuilding everything.....
Majority of everything is still in place (roads)
Shelter/protection
Water
Food
goes into
Sustainability
Eventually
Barter/trade with others
If your running a group of people who do you let in and who do you exclude
Who do you exclude? Isn't that obvious, the Blacks, the Jews the Muslims and christians the mexicans and europeans and the asians. ohh and most importantly, we exclude the white people. So in the end Dogs rule the world YAY!
Jihadin wrote: Think some of you all is rebuilding everything.....
Majority of everything is still in place (roads)
Shelter/protection
Water
Food
goes into
Sustainability
Eventually
Barter/trade with others
If your running a group of people who do you let in and who do you exclude
Who do you exclude? Isn't that obvious, the Blacks, the Jews the Muslims and christians the mexicans and europeans and the asians. ohh and most importantly, we exclude the white people. So in the end Dogs rule the world YAY!
Unsure if serious but so far this is a trust issue so I let a MOD decide eventually
Kronk is a auto in (trigger puller and entertainment)
Same as Bromsey (240B gunner)
Jihadin wrote: Think some of you all is rebuilding everything.....
Majority of everything is still in place (roads)
Shelter/protection
Water
Food
goes into
Sustainability
Eventually
Barter/trade with others
If your running a group of people who do you let in and who do you exclude
Who do you exclude? Isn't that obvious, the Blacks, the Jews the Muslims and christians the mexicans and europeans and the asians. ohh and most importantly, we exclude the white people. So in the end Dogs rule the world YAY!
Unsure if serious but so far this is a trust issue so I let a MOD decide eventually
Kronk is a auto in (trigger puller and entertainment)
Same as Bromsey (240B gunner)
You Ghaz might be SOL
LOL If you haven't figured out yet that I am never serious about racism then we need to recheck you for TBI . I was 2621 Intel but I used to hit black all day every day with a M16A4 RCO And I was a shoe in with the 203...loved me some cheesey puff rounds.
Jihadin wrote: Think some of you all is rebuilding everything.....
Majority of everything is still in place (roads)
Shelter/protection
Water
Food
goes into
Sustainability
Eventually
Barter/trade with others
If your running a group of people who do you let in and who do you exclude
Who do you exclude? Isn't that obvious, the Blacks, the Jews the Muslims and christians the mexicans and europeans and the asians. ohh and most importantly, we exclude the white people. So in the end Dogs rule the world YAY!
Unsure if serious but so far this is a trust issue so I let a MOD decide eventually
Kronk is a auto in (trigger puller and entertainment)
Same as Bromsey (240B gunner)
You Ghaz might be SOL
The Great Wienie is displeased to not be in your circle of trust, and has vowed to turn your inner circle into a biohazard of epic proportions the next time His Magnificence indulges in some good Tex Mex.
Jihadin wrote: Think some of you all is rebuilding everything.....
Majority of everything is still in place (roads)
Shelter/protection
Water
Food
goes into
Sustainability
Eventually
Barter/trade with others
If your running a group of people who do you let in and who do you exclude
Who do you exclude? Isn't that obvious, the Blacks, the Jews the Muslims and christians the mexicans and europeans and the asians. ohh and most importantly, we exclude the white people. So in the end Dogs rule the world YAY!
Unsure if serious but so far this is a trust issue so I let a MOD decide eventually
Kronk is a auto in (trigger puller and entertainment)
Same as Bromsey (240B gunner)
You Ghaz might be SOL
The Great Wienie is displeased to not be in your circle of trust, and has vowed to turn your inner circle into a biohazard of epic proportions the next time His Magnificence indulges in some good Tex Mex.
I've eaten dog in real life. Couple times to. If it comes down to extending the food stores.........
Jihadin wrote: All it take is Ketchup
Ketchup makes anything edible
Looking kind of plump there Frazz
1. Ketchup-yes indeedy!
2. Yep, but I'm gristly and taste like old wiener dog. On the positive, you'll need a really good barbeque sauce, and hickory smoke. Smoked Frazzled, its whats for dinner.
Live ammo would become scarce later on unless one acquire someone who can reload rounds
Believe everyone should learn that skill and keep eye's out for brass of assorted rounds (spent and unspent)
Can see black powder weapons becoming norm and modern fire arms being used at defense
Looking at bow hunting for most part
Fishing
Ducks...........might be a problem
Using live rounds would give away one's position and might bring the "bad" people who are in raider mode.
Jihadin wrote: Live ammo would become scarce later on unless one acquire someone who can reload rounds
Believe everyone should learn that skill and keep eye's out for brass of assorted rounds (spent and unspent)
Can see black powder weapons becoming norm and modern fire arms being used at defense
Looking at bow hunting for most part
Fishing
Ducks...........might be a problem
Using live rounds would give away one's position and might bring the "bad" people who are in raider mode.
Bows are always a good solution for hunting, especially since it doesn't take that much skill to make your own ammunition. where as gunpowder weapons require a fair amount of manufacture (Nitrates and what have you)
A major natural source of potassium nitrate was the deposits crystallizing from cave walls and the accumulations of bat guano in caves.[16] Extraction is accomplished by immersing the guano in water for a day, filtering, and harvesting the crystals in the filtered water. Traditionally, guano was the source used in Laos for the manufacture of gunpowder for Bang Fai rockets.
LeConte
Perhaps the most exhaustive discussion of the production of this material is the 1862 LeConte text.[17] He was writing with the express purpose of increasing production in the Confederate States to support their needs during the American Civil War. Since he was calling for the assistance of rural farming communities, the descriptions and instructions are both simple and explicit. He details the "French Method", along with several variations, as well as a "Swiss method". N.B. Many references have been made to a method using only straw and urine, but there is no such method in this work.
French method
Niter-beds are prepared by mixing manure with either mortar or wood ashes, common earth and organic materials such as straw to give porosity to a compost pile typically 1.5×2×5 meters in size.[17] The heap was usually under a cover from the rain, kept moist with urine, turned often to accelerate the decomposition, then finally leached with water after approximately one year, to remove the soluble calcium nitrate which was then converted to potassium nitrate by filtering through the potash.
Swiss method
LeConte describes a process using only urine and not dung, referring to it as the Swiss method. Urine is collected directly, in a sandpit under a stable. The sand itself is dug out and leached for nitrates which were then converted to potassium nitrate via potash, as above.
From nitric acid
From 1903 until the World War I era, potassium nitrate for black powder and fertilizer was produced on an industrial scale from nitric acid produced via the Birkeland–Eyde process, which used an electric arc to oxidize nitrogen from the air. During World War I the newly industrialized Haber process (1913) was combined with the Ostwald process after 1915, allowing Germany to produce nitric acid for the war after being cut off from its supplies of mineral sodium nitrates from Chile (see nitratite).
Side note: Did you mean "Military Men" or did you mean anyone military because realistically I would take Military women to. Not the average woman though, just the top 1%, the ones that go hard or not at all
It's just a bad habit. I have never seen a female military anything before and much of the history I enjoy reading obviously features primarily military men and thus as I type what I think etc...
Obviously a camp with only men will not work for long as a society.
Side note: Did you mean "Military Men" or did you mean anyone military because realistically I would take Military women to. Not the average woman though, just the top 1%, the ones that go hard or not at all
It's just a bad habit. I have never seen a female military anything before and much of the history I enjoy reading obviously features primarily military men and thus as I type what I think etc...
Obviously a camp with only men will not work for long as a society.
